DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-9 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2024/0266583), and further in view of Kim (US 2024/0274833 as cited within IDS).
As to claim 1, Park discloses a rechargeable lithium battery ([0026], [0593]) comprising:
an electrode assembly wound around a winding axis and ([0029], [0480] and discussed throughout) comprising:
a positive electrode plate having a positive electrode uncoated portion and a positive electrode coated portion (figure 7a, [0480], [0026] and discussed throughout);
a negative electrode plate having a negative electrode uncoated portion and a negative electrode coated portion (figure 7a, [0480], [0026] and discussed throughout); and
a separator between the positive electrode plate and the negative electrode plate ([0026], and discussed throughout),
wherein a ceramic insulating film is on at least a portion of the positive electrode uncoated portion (figure 7a #44, [0261] and discussed throughout),
the ceramic insulating film comprises ceramic and a binder ([0261] and discussed throughout).
Park is silent to wherein a binder content based on a total amount of the ceramic insulating film is greater than or equal to about 60 wt %. Kim discloses an electrode having an insulating layer ([0012]) wherein the insulating layer comprises ceramic and a binder ([0060], [0057] and discussed throughout) wherein the binder content based on a total amount of the ceramic insulating film is greater than or equal to about 60 wt % ([0058], [0064] and discussed throughout). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to use the insulating material from Kim within Park as the insulating layer that exhibits excellent adhesion force, and does not cause cracks or the like at a boundary between a coated portion and an uncoated portion of the electrode while stably securing the desired insulating property ([0012], Kim). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 2, modified Park discloses wherein, the binder content based on a total amount of the ceramic insulating film is greater than or equal to about 80 wt % ([0058], [0064] and discussed throughout, Kim). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 3, modified Park discloses wherein, the ceramic is at least one selected from among Al2O3, SiO2, TiO2, SnO2, CeO2, MgO, NiO, CaO, GaO, ZnO, ZrO2, Y2O3, SrTiO3, BaTiO3, Mg(OH)2, boehmite, and combinations thereof ([0261], Park and [0060] and discussed throughout, Kim).
As to claim 4, modified Park discloses wherein, the binder is at least one selected from among polyvinyl alcohol, carboxymethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, diacetyl cellulose, polyvinyl chloride, carboxylated polyvinyl chloride, polyvinyl fluoride, an ethylene oxide-containing polymer, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, a styrene-butadiene rubber, a (meth)acrylated styrene-butadiene rubber, an epoxy resin, a (meth)acrylic resin, a polyester resin, nylon, and/combinations thereof ([0057] and discussed throughout; Kim).
As to claim 5, modified Park discloses wherein, the positive electrode uncoated portion is at a long side end from a winding tip to a winding end of the positive electrode plate (figure 7a #44, [0261] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 7, modified Park discloses wherein, a length and a width of the positive electrode uncoated portion satisfy Equation 1:
1.*10-3≤W1/L1≤2.*10-3Equation 1
wherein, in Equation 1,
L1 is a length of the positive electrode plate ([0254], 3m-5m; and discussed throughout), and
W1 is a width of the positive electrode uncoated portion ([0261] 0.3 mm – 5mm; and discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
As to claim 8, modified Park discloses wherein, a width of the positive electrode uncoated portion and a width of the positive electrode coated portion satisfy Equation 2:
0.09≤W1/W2≤0.13Equation 2
wherein, in Equation 2,
W1 is a width of the positive electrode uncoated portion ([0261], 0.3 mm – 5 mm; discussed throughout), and
W2 is a width of the positive electrode coated portion ([0254], 50 mm – 120 mm; discussed throughout). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to claim 9, modified Park discloses wherein, the positive electrode uncoated portion comprises a first positive electrode uncoated portion being a positive electrode tab (figure 7a #43 and the tabs; [0261] and discussed throughout) and a second positive electrode uncoated portion not being an electrode tab (figure 7a #44, [0261] and discussed throughout), and the ceramic insulating film is located on the second positive electrode uncoated portion (figure 7a #44, [0261] and discussed throughout).
As to claim 11, modified Park discloses wherein, further comprising: a cylindrical can accommodating the electrode assembly (figure 29, figure 30 #171 battery housing, discussed throughout).
As to claim 12, modified Park is silent to wherein a volume of the cylindrical can is about 145 cm3 to about 183 cm3. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordains skill within the art to adjust the size of the battery housing as a mere change in size (see MPEP 2144.04) and/or as a result effective variable as the larger the battery can the lager the battery within thus the more power at the expense of the size of the battery (see MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Park as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2024/0266700 as cited within IDS)
As to claim 6, modified Park is silent to wherein, the positive electrode uncoated portion is exposed to the top of the separator. Lee discloses a wound electrode assembly with a first electrode, a second electrode and a separator there in between (abstract, figure 4 and 5) wherein the positive electrode uncoated portion is exposed to the top of the separator (figure 6-8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art at the time of the effective filling date of the invention to have the uncoated portion exposed to the top of the separator within Park as within Lee as a mere combing prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results (see MPEP 2143 I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN R OHARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0728. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN R OHARA/Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Prosecution Insights